Talk:Alignment
Reptile and Sareena OK then, I understand there's been a few complications here recently, regarding, in particular, these two characters. I'd like to ask exactly what we should do with them. *Reptile is currently being listed as Neutral, yet some IP addresses keep putting him as Evil. This begs the question, what IS he exactly? I mean, yes, he works for evil, but is he really more concerned about recovering his race? If that were the case, I can understand why he'd be neutral. *Sareena is currently listed as Good, but that, as we know, is currently under debate. The problem is I'm not sure where she should go. One IP address removed her completely from the full list, but that in my mind isn't the answer, because she's still an MK character and should go somewhere. But where? Maybe an "Unknown" section? Whatever way works, I'd be interested to get a concensus out of this. CrashBash 07:36, November 20, 2010 (UTC) :I think that the best solution is making sure that everyone is listed under the Alignment stated on their pages. That would mean placing Reptile in the "Neutral" section and Sareena in a section called "Unknown." However, to avoid edit-wars, we could – through the use of parenthetical remarks or footnotes – indicate which character's alignments are currently under debate. For example: ::Neutral ::*Reptile1 ::1 This character's alignment is currently under debate, please see said character's talk page for further details. :or: ::Unknown ::*Sareena (Currently under debate. Please see Sareena's talk page for more information.) :However, those are just suggestions. 08:02, November 20, 2010 (UTC) Reptile reptile should be neutral. He is neutral. 12:44, June 21, 2011 (UTC) Minor characters I was thinking to add the minor and canon characters as Tremor, Tasia, Argus, etc in this article. What do you think? -- Dragon NJMB 02:55, July 10, 2011 (UTC) Since they are caracters... I think it could work out. But remember they are minor characters, and this article is about the major ones. 15:29, July 10, 2011 (UTC) Sub-Zero Looks like there's a bit of debate on human Sub-Zero's alignment in the second timeline, whether he was good or neutral. Personally, I think he was always good, but there seems to be some disagreement. Apparently this issue has been discussed several times, but I couldn't find anything on here. So, let's debate. Those who think he was good, why is that? Same goes for those who think he was neutral. I'll add my two cents later on. -- Sponge Pore 18:24, September 16, 2011 (UTC) You know you make some good points. I remember a lot of the cutscenes in MK9 and they point out that he wasn't the man that his brother was. I mean for instance: * Raiden's interference did not change Sub-Zero's heart or the person he was * Sub-Zero is geniunely sorry to see what happened to Cyrax * Sub-Zero is very civil towards Sonya and Jax upon first meeting them * Sub-Zero makes sure Jax is okay before leaving and tells Sonya how to get him back to Earthrealm * He only leaves because he has other business and knows Jax will be okay * He spares Reptile's life * He berates Shao Kahn for having people fight and die for his amusement If you remember the Original MKII, he spared a kombatant's life thus convincing Scorpion that he wasn't the same person who killed him before the events of Mortal Kombat 1. This concludes my belief that Raiden's interference with the timeline hadn't changed Sub-Zero, it just changed his fate. YamatoBushi 04:29, September 18, 2011 (UTC) Agreed. I realize this is an alternate timeline, but the way it works is everything that happened prior to the events o Raiden receiving his visions remains the same. So, everything before the beginning of MK1 was kept intact, because Raiden only began to change things then. One character whose moral perspectives were changed was Cyrax, though he was unfortunately later automated. Another is Scorpion, who, having been shown the visions of the elder Sub-Zero killing his family (which he didn't see in the original timeline because he didn't need convincing to kill Sub-Zero), became much angrier and more vengeful, which led to him desiring to kill the younger Sub-Zero during the tournament when challenged by him, even when he knew the younger Sub-Zero was a different person. The younger Sub-Zero's moral perspective was not interfered with. And as seen above, we can see examples of his good nature. What exactly classifies him as neutral? The fact he wanted revenges? So did Kenshi and Kung Lao, but they're still classified as good. I don't mean for this to become an argument, but I think this needs settling. If anyone has a counterargument, feel free to set it forth. Sponge Pore 23:38, February 27, 2012 (UTC)